![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 42. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 8:37:34
Dr. Hsiung and Dinah,
I am requesting that you close down the entire forum now. IMO,It is not being moderated on a regular basis in a way that posts that have the potential, IMO, to arrouse ill-will toward me and others are addressed quickly. IMO there are posts of that nature in some threads here now that are going unaddressed, which I feel have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me and others and cause great emotional harm, not only to me , but to others also.
A suggetion could be that you have a sign that says,"Temporarily Closed" come up when the site is keyed while you are for one reason or another unable to have the board monotored on a more regular basis untill you either appoint consistant moderation by having many others moderate besides you and Dinah or you moderate the forum on a more regular basis so that posts of the nature in question do not remain unaddressed for more than,IMO, 5 minutes, ,for others could think that since the posts are unaddressed, that they are acceptable. That could, IMO, have the potential to foster a hostile environment toward me and others by having some think that they also could post in a similar nature as the posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward me and others.
Lou Pilder
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 11, 2005, at 8:57:27
In reply to Lou's request to the administration, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 8:37:34
Do you mean the admin board, or all the boards?Do you expect someone to be here 24/7? Or just during American hours?
Posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 12:24:39
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on June 11, 2005, at 8:57:27
Lou,
I believe that five minutes is simply not practical for a response time here on Babble. I know from past experience that seeing something posted about me in the subject line of a post day in and day out continued to bother me. So I think I can related to your concern about posts going unaddressed.In real life, if you were to go to the police, an ombudsman, a store manager, etc. to make a complaint, it seems unlikely that your complaint would be resolved in five minutes. Those avenues presumably would have multiple resources to handle requests. Still, the police dept., ombudsman's office, or store would not close while your matter is being deliberated.
I am assuming you feel upset by this, or you would not bring it up. I'm sorry about your upset. I hope that you find support in real life to help you through the wait time.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:28:01
In reply to Lou's request to the administration, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 8:37:34
> I am requesting that you close down the entire forum now.
Let's keep trying to work things out instead?
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 12:30:12
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » NikkiT2, posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 12:24:39
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:17:23
In reply to Lou's request to the administration, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 8:37:34
Lou, I'm sorry you are hurting.
It is hard...
But I think that what people are saying...
Is that they felt really hurt about you hauling a post over here for determination that was part of a thread where people were trying to support the poster and nobody felt offended.The primary aims of the boards are support and education. The rules are here to facilitate that and if the rules prevented it then this would be a very sad place indeed.
The thread was supportive Lou.
It is only when things go unsupportive and / or people complain of feeling offended that the civility rules come into play.
Persistent requests for determination are hard. Especially where nobody on the boards did feel offended but there is a 'but wouldn't this hypothetical person feel offended' thing going on.
I don't think...
Peoples opinion is changing Lou
Rather it is that people are finding the courage to attempt to express it
When there is always the risk that they will get blocked.I know you are finding things hard at the moment.
Can you see how / why people are upset?
It might be worthwhile trying to figure that out.
Sometimes people just need their feelings acknowledged to feel a little better.
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:37:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:17:23
Very well put Alexandra. I totally agree. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:54:04
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 18:17:23
> It is only when things go unsupportive and / or people complain of feeling offended that the civility rules come into play.
If I had not seen evidence supporting other conclusions, I might also wonder why Lou pursues the line of questions he does. But I have seen several times when the admin calls posts into question solely because he believes a hypothetical reader could possibly feel put down, and have at other times stated that my status as a citizen of the United States makes me a member for a group whose collective decisions were called "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke" but no administrative effort was afforded to mitigate the impact the statments had on me, regardless my tedious efforts to articulate how I reacted to them. Such would tend to support a conclusion that some people's feelings don't matter as much as others do to the administrator, which apparently leads some members to explore whose feelings matter to the administration and why.If Lou's concern is solely about the consistency of administrative policy, he supports my interests by bringing those concerns to this board. If Lou vicariously felt something untoward about somebody laughing in the face of mortal circumstances, he would seem correct to bring his concerns to this board, regardless whether the parties in question felt or intended a put-down. After all, if we are now allowed to joke about death, I could tell some very interesting stories...
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:04:56
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:54:04
>but no administrative effort was afforded to mitigate the impact the statments had on me, regardless my tedious efforts to articulate how I reacted to them.
It didn't sound like they bothered you to start with. It sounded like you were concerned for some hypothetical person who might be bothered by them. It did seem to take some time before you said that actually you did feel hurt by them.
When I feel hurt by something that somebody has said then I find it useful to post something to the poster saying how I felt in response to whatever bits. That way we can sort things out for ourselves rather than me running off to Dr Bob to sort it out. I think most posters appreciate and respect that. It gives them a chance to clarify or apologise. And it tends to make them feel more charitable towards the person who feels offended.
The boards are here for us to support each other and find out information. The rules are supposed to facilitate that. One can get so lost in trying to understand the rules that the purpose of the boards just escapes one.
> If Lou vicariously felt something untoward about somebody laughing in the face of mortal circumstances, he would seem correct to bring his concerns to this board, regardless whether the parties in question felt or intended a put-down.They were laughing in the face of their own mortal circumstances. Not anybody elses. And not mortal circumstances that were under their control (ie via self injury). The laughter was one of those coping strategies in the sense that without it they would be feeling quite despairing. IMO that makes a hell of a difference.
>After all, if we are now allowed to joke about death, I could tell some very interesting stories...
Do you get the difference???
If you don't then theres nothing I can say.
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 20:09:37
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:54:04
Well believe it or not a lot of people do laugh about death. My grandfather used to drive by cemetaries and say "people are dying to go there". No he wasn't dying at the time. Maybe you wouldn't consider this laughing but when i worked in ICU a pt died. l5minutes later we had a makeshift tablecloth on the deathbed and were eating a buffet contributed by all the staff. What about all the people that attend funerals then go to the deceased families house and proceed to laugh, eat, drink and be merry. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:13:39
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » so, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 20:09:37
The point...
Is that as a general rule we aren't supposed to joke about death on these boards, Phillipa.
I was just saying that there might be appropriate exceptions.
But I am having a hard time seeing why this needs to be pointed out to some people...
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 20:22:40
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » Phillipa, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:13:39
I know that. Sorry Alexandra. I guess I'm just frustrated. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 20:37:00
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:04:56
> It didn't sound like they bothered you to start with. It sounded like you were concerned for some hypothetical person who might be bothered by them. It did seem to take some time before you said that actually you did feel hurt by them.
Perhaps that is an artifact of the way I chose to express my feelings. Maybe the best part of my mental health strategy is minimizing the signifigance of my feelings. But that doesn't mean when asked, I can't explore and report what I felt, or that it is not legit for me to refer to the part of myself that feels something by a hypothetical reference --- in part that might be because I have mixed feelings. Maybe i agree that the laws are what people said they are, but my own view of the laws tends to put myself down. Isn't self-deprecation involving mixed emotions a basic part of some animal motivation, including human motivation?
> When I feel hurt by something that somebody has said then I find it useful to post something to the poster saying how I felt in response to whatever bits. That way we can sort things out for ourselves rather than me running off to Dr Bob to sort it out. I think most posters appreciate and respect that. It gives them a chance to clarify or apologise. And it tends to make them feel more charitable towards the person who feels offended.Those are your feelings and your responses. Others can have vastly different feelings and coping responses that might be just as legitimate. It is legitimate of me to think that others might not react to my efforts to use your strategies in the same way they react to your efforts. And there is some basis for me to believe that, while others can call government policies hypocritical in the context of this board, I might be sanctioned if I made similar statements, or called contrary policies, such as legalization or decriminalization, hypocritical, pathetic or a joke.
Nonetheless, I can think of honest and honorable reasons to question policies that would allow more people to inhale and to promote inhalation of tars, carbon monoxide and pyrobenzines. And I might have experiences here or elsewhere that lead me to believe considering both sides of that question sometimes leads to escalated conflict with people who are willing to declare, at the outset, that public policies that prohibit inhalation of certain forms of tars, carbon monoxide and pyrobenzines are hypocritical, pathetic or a joke.
> The boards are here for us to support each other and find out information. The rules are supposed to facilitate that. One can get so lost in trying to understand the rules that the purpose of the boards just escapes one.Support for people feeling confusion in a particular circumstance can be supportive of them in general, because the way we deal with particular dilemas can sometimes be typical of the way we cope with other matters. One way of supporting people is to help them face the fact that the circumstance they are confronting just might not be entirely rational -- that the irrationality might be more a product of environmental or social factors than it is a product of their own ill health. It's the "bad things happen to good people" problem.
> They were laughing in the face of their own mortal circumstances. Not anybody elses. And not mortal circumstances that were under their control (ie via self injury). The laughter was one of those coping strategies in the sense that without it they would be feeling quite despairing. IMO that makes a hell of a difference.
> Do you get the difference???
>
I'm not sure I get the difference. Once when I was in a situation that could have killed me but over which I had no control, I recall feeling quite jovial. But that doesn't mean I would be allowed to post details here. And admin often intervenes when he thinks someone might vicariously feel something, regardless who the postings were between. If I am the one vicariously feeling something, and I choose to report my feelings in the context of explaining what a person other than me might feel, what is wrong with that?> If you don't then theres nothing I can say.
That's okay.
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 20:49:29
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » so, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 20:09:37
> Well believe it or not a lot of people do laugh about death. My grandfather used to drive by cemetaries and say "people are dying to go there". No he wasn't dying at the time. Maybe you wouldn't consider this laughing but when i worked in ICU a pt died. l5minutes later we had a makeshift tablecloth on the deathbed and were eating a buffet contributed by all the staff. What about all the people that attend funerals then go to the deceased families house and proceed to laugh, eat, drink and be merry.
To my knowledge, we are not discussing the propriety of joking about death, but rather application and means of conforming with a guideline at this site that reads "Please ... don't joke about death."
I have no problem laughing about death if it is my own death. But I might have a problem with others laughing about my death, or vicariously laughing about a circumstance that could apply to my own death. And I am well familiar with gallows humor as it serves certain professions. It is a different matter, but some people laugh when they kill others, too, and some of those who laugh about killing others do so while in service to me as their fellow citizen. I recall recently watching videography of a killing inside a mosque, and the American who killed the person made the statement "He's not faking it now." I know of no reason I should not believe some people laugh about death, nor do I represent any view in general about the propriety of laughing about death. I am interested here in what is permissible here, and for whom.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 21:44:10
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » so, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 20:09:37
ow
worked in ICU a pt died. l5minutes later we had a makeshift tablecloth on the deathbed and were eating a buffet contributed by all the staff.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 21:57:35
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » alexandra_k, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 20:22:40
worked in ICU a pt died. l5minutes later we had a makeshift tablecloth on the deathbed and were eating a buffet contributed by all the staff.
I know, that when you work in certain fields you can get somehwat desensitize,d or develop a sense of humor about these thing, but it was relaly hard not to think of someone you loved, who's died being the patient. I wish there had been a trigger warning. I really wish that.
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 22:13:48
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration » Phillipa, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 21:57:35
I couldn't eat the food. I left and got something from the cafeteria and ate in another room. That was too callous for me. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 22:18:30
In reply to Re: Lou's request to the administration, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 20:49:29
My main concern is that this conversation seems to be linking a chronic and generally controllable condition with death and mortality.
Could we please quit that?
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 22:28:31
In reply to Well, that's not my main concern, posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 22:18:30
Absolutely! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 6:39:53
In reply to Well, that's not my main concern, posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 22:18:30
> My main concern is that this conversation seems to be linking a chronic and generally controllable condition with death and mortality.
>
> Could we please quit that?
Dinah,
Are you referring to what I have posted in your post above? If so, is it not that I posted that Lupus is a {potentially} fatal disease?
But in your post, you write,[..my..concern...linking a controllable condition with death...]. Are you saying that people do not die from lupus? If so, could you look at the following links reporting of people that died from lupus?
You write,[...can we quit that...?] Are you saying that I can not post that there are people that die from lupus and that there is the potential for that disease to be fatal?
Lou
http://www.nndb.com/people/095/000049945/
http://www.nndb.com/people/414/000044282/
http://www.nndb.com/people/568/000051415/
>
Posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 7:03:26
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post- » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 6:39:53
Lou, I am asking in the name of compassion and charity that we do not dwell on the negatives in any illness we are not personally facing either personally or in a loved one, and are discussing it in that context. The people who are facing it have doctors, and ready access to the internet. In this case, as with diabetes which I have more comfort discussing as I actually have it, the statistics are overwhelmingly positive. But sometimes it's easy to overlook the statistics and dwell on the negatives, especially if it is directly in front of us in a place we probably weren't expecting it.
We could choose to think about worst case scenarios or we could choose to discuss the overwhelmingly positive numbers of people who live a full lifespan with this condition.
You may of course choose to do either.
I think dwelling on the worst case scenarios is a right earned by those who are actually experiencing something.
So that if I, for example, want to moan about the possibilities of diabetes many of which I know very well, it would be venting and sharing of my fears. But if you were to tell me that many people die of complications of diabetes, especially not in the context of trying to intervene in what you see is self destructive behavior... Well, would you wish to do that to me if I were trying to focus on the many people who do not?
Again, it is your choice.
However, I will not engage in further discussion about it with you on board in any but the most positive terms, because further discussion with you has already brought up another link to fatalities, and I do not wish to see that continue. You can continue it without me, of course. But if you want me to discuss this matter, you can email me.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 8:31:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 7:03:26
> Lou, I am asking in the name of compassion and charity that we do not dwell on the negatives in any illness we are not personally facing either personally or in a loved one, and are discussing it in that context. The people who are facing it have doctors, and ready access to the internet. In this case, as with diabetes which I have more comfort discussing as I actually have it, the statistics are overwhelmingly positive. But sometimes it's easy to overlook the statistics and dwell on the negatives, especially if it is directly in front of us in a place we probably weren't expecting it.
>
> We could choose to think about worst case scenarios or we could choose to discuss the overwhelmingly positive numbers of people who live a full lifespan with this condition.
>
> You may of course choose to do either.
>
> I think dwelling on the worst case scenarios is a right earned by those who are actually experiencing something.
>
> So that if I, for example, want to moan about the possibilities of diabetes many of which I know very well, it would be venting and sharing of my fears. But if you were to tell me that many people die of complications of diabetes, especially not in the context of trying to intervene in what you see is self destructive behavior... Well, would you wish to do that to me if I were trying to focus on the many people who do not?
>
> Again, it is your choice.
>
> However, I will not engage in further discussion about it with you on board in any but the most positive terms, because further discussion with you has already brought up another link to fatalities, and I do not wish to see that continue. You can continue it without me, of course. But if you want me to discuss this matter, you can email me.Dinah,
You wrote in your post above that you would not discuss{it} with me. Is the {it} only about lupus in referrence to your preference?
If so, then the following is not about your preferrence as to what you want to read or discuss, but as to what you have written here concerning me.
You wrote,[...in the name of compassion and charity thaat we do not dwell on the negatives in any illness...].
Are you saying that {I} am {dwelling} on what you say? It is not my intention to dwell on what you say, for I have presented links in response to your post and other's posts. Are you saying that I am not a commpassionate person, for any reason, including because of my administrative request and my posting of links in response to what you and others have written?
The original thread about this is about Dr.Hsiung's code guidline that states,[...Please,...don't joke about death...]. he original poster wrote that the father was given 3-6 months and that there is a diagnosis of lupus.
Both of those statement IMO have the {potential} to mean that 1)that the father will die in 3-6 months and,2), that lupus has the potential to be fatal and there were statements that I think could have the potential to be [...joking about death...] and I had the concern to know if it is acceptable or not in relation to that guidline here for those statements.
I do not understand why those statements are not addressed as falling in the catagory of [...Please,...don't joke about death...]. There are statements by you here that IMO have the potential to lead others to think that lupus does not have the potential to be fatal for you have written that [...My main concern...linking a chronic and... controllable condition with death...].[...quit that...]. Could you rephrase that so that you include that lupus has the potential to be fatal so that the reader could have the opportunity to know from what you wrote that there is the potential for lupus to be fatal?
My concern is that there is the potential for lupus to be fatal and that goes to the administrative concern of mine that the guidline could or could not make the statements in question acceptable. But even without that, the statement ,[...father given 3-6 months...] is there and i think that unless there is a disclaimer to the contrary, that the statement has the potential to mean that the father will die in 3-6 months. I can not see anythinh humorous about that and I can not understand Dr. Hsiung's postion on this. If they are acceptable, then what does the guidline by Dr. Hsiung mean?
I wonder what would have happened if Dr. Hsiung addressed the statements in question that I think have the potential to be joking about death as being unacceptable.
Some one wrote, [...,but rather application and means of conforming with a guidline at this site that reads, "Please,...don't joke about death."...].
I feel that since my posts are on the administrrative board that they deserve the same consideration as any other administartive discussion and that others, not write things that in any way have the potential to have others have the potential to think that what I am writing is in some way not to be written here. You write [...a right earned by those ...experiancing....]. Are you saying that {only} if I had lupus that it would be OK that I could post the links that were in response to what you and others wrote? If so, then could that mean that others could write posts of the nature that you and others here have in relation to our discussion and I would in some way , doing something unacceptable to reply to them with links that could show clarification to what they wrote, even to me?
I am requesting to you that you write a reply to me about my questions to you about your use of "dwell" and "compasionate" in the opening of your post to me for I feel that I need more infomation from you about what you mean in order to make a determination as to if your statements have the potential for others to have the potential to think that the statements could accuse me or put me down.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 9:06:25
In reply to Lou's response to Dinah's post-:B » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on June 12, 2005, at 8:31:39
I'm sorry I made any posts on this thread at all. Nothing I ever say on Admin makes the slightest bit of difference to anybody at all. I really need to learn to truly accept my powerlessness in the face of Admin. Please just ignore my prior two posts and carry on as if I had never spoken.
I sincerely regret any distress I have caused you. And I do mean that. It was never my intention.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 14:13:05
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dinah's post-:B » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on June 12, 2005, at 9:06:25
> I'm sorry I made any posts on this thread at all. Nothing I ever say on Admin makes the slightest bit of difference to anybody at all. I really need to learn to truly accept my powerlessness in the face of Admin. Please just ignore my prior two posts and carry on as if I had never spoken...
If it makes any difference, I agreed with what you said about your main concern with this thread. I hope you wrote what you did in the heat of the moment, and that you don't really believe that *nothing* you say here ever makes a *bit* of difference to *anybody* at all! I'm sorry, dear, but I think one could find plenty of evidence to the contrary. :-) For goodness sake, you're a deputy! Plus you've been here a long time and are well-respected by many. (I can't speak for everyone.) Isn't it more like there are some issues that you feel powerless about lately? (I know I've felt that way!)
Posted by Phillipa on June 12, 2005, at 16:42:49
In reply to Re: Making a difference » Dinah, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 14:13:05
Back to the original post on the Faith Board. The poster has often referred to her Father as "Lazarus". He has so far beaten the odds when he was supposed to leave this earth and left the hospital and gone home. So for him the 3-6months is thankfully becoming much longer. Fondly, Phillipa
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.